It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Confederate Flag on Truck at La Crosse Campus Stirs Debate

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ok, let's alter the request then. Name ONE law passed by Congress that infringes on the 1st Amendment that hasn't been overturned by the SCOTUS yet.




posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

It should also be noted that it is history revisionism that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery. So you are painting a strawman about my argument here. I never claimed that Lincoln fought to end slavery, just that the south fought to maintain it. Lincoln actually only wanted to end the expansion of slavery into new territories, he had no intention of actually challenging slavery, but the South didn't believe him and starting with SC they seceded one by one upon him being elected (he didn't even have any chance to adopt any Presidential policies before the South grabbed its ball and went home).


The way you stated it, makes it sound like you're saying that the South ONLY fought to maintain slavery. Funny how Lincoln is hailed as the "Great Emancipator" when that was never his intention. Not to mention his attempt to colonize and send all the blacks to Liberia.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Later in the war, Lincoln changed his tune. Though like you told another poster, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Southern Slaves (not to mention it is likely very unconstitutional).

It is likely he got that nickname because of people who didn't study history thoroughly enough to get all the nuances of the war. Kind of like mislabeling the South's position in the war as "States' Rights" instead of "States' right to own slaves".



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Um... No... Burden of proof rests in your lap buddy. You made the claim that he was forced to remove the decal under threat of termination. The article says he it was done willingly. So you are inventing part of the narrative by saying that he was forced to remove it under threat of termination, so you have to prove that is what happened. Not me proving it didn't happen. I can't prove a negative.


Wrong. I speculated. YOU stated that it wasn't so. You seem to be on the side of police-state for these issues. Does free expression upset you?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

Not to mention his attempt to colonize and send all the blacks to Liberia.


The American Colonization Society was started in 1822. Lincoln was a member but the idea existed long before he was involved in politics.




edit on 30-11-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not saying what they did was illegal. I'm saying that it was a giant waste of time for everyone involved because certain people didn't like a sticker and everyone had to jump through hoops to make sure they didn't feel bad. I find that to be ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DBCowboy

Um... No... Burden of proof rests in your lap buddy. You made the claim that he was forced to remove the decal under threat of termination. The article says he it was done willingly. So you are inventing part of the narrative by saying that he was forced to remove it under threat of termination, so you have to prove that is what happened. Not me proving it didn't happen. I can't prove a negative.


Wrong. I speculated. YOU stated that it wasn't so.


No, I asked you for evidence that what you speculated actually happened then deferred to the account in the OP because speculating isn't definitive. Then you got defensive when I called you to task for inventing part of the narrative in the article.


You seem to be on the side of police-state for these issues. Does free expression upset you?


Strawman much? I mean I only deferred to the words reported in the article in lieu of speculating yet somehow that makes me anti-free expression? Are you going to attempt a real argument at any point in this thread?
edit on 30-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Technically your right. Its not the government doing it. Sadly its the citizens.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Maybe so, but it isn't an erosion of our First Amendment rights in the slightest and to even MENTION that amendment in this thread is dishonest.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Could you elaborate on that?
The way I see it, his 1st amendment right offended other people, who used their 1st amendment rights to protest it and a circle jerk ensued, ending when crybabies got their way.


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Think of the children!!!!!!

What did the children ever do with themselves when they saw the confederate flag before this year? Did we not love them and their feelings before then? Did their feelings not matter until now?

How did so many children not expire in their beds in South Carolina for the last few generations? They received no counseling either yet they continued to thrive and exist without the need for a safe spot to release all of their fear and angst.

All of these abused kids from generations ago somehow dealt with all of this fear and angst...


I'm not even being funny here. Somehow in the last year this flag is being treated like people have PTSD from the mere sight of it. None of those complaining about it were around when slavery existed yet all of the sudden there is extreme fear and angst.

A bigger load of Bravo Sierra than I have seen in quite a bit.


edit on 11/30/2015 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Well I really don't have a response to that, that is certainly true. But usually when someone invokes the 1st Amendment in a discussion such as this its meant to complain that it was violated in some way, but that isn't the case.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

There was no law in Montgomery, AL that stated black people had to sit in the back of the bus.

It was a social convention. It was well understood that the majority kkk/democrat mob rule would retaliate against anybody who violated this convention.

JUST AS TODAY IT IS UNDERSTODD THAT EVEN PRESIDENTS OF UNIVERSITIYS ARE FORCED OUT OF EMPLOYMENT FOR UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS OF RACISM MY THE MOB RULE MAJORITY.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
The Smith Act of 1940
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
The Patriot Act
The Protect America Act
FISA in relation to FOIA releases of government surveillance requests.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
What did the children ever do with themselves when they saw the confederate flag before this year?


Obviously, they were stricken with "fear and angst," leading them to cower in the corner, piddling on themselves, weeping, and sucking their little baby thumbs.

*sigh*

God, I miss the days when Americans had some measure of thickness to their skin. Life was better back then, not watching supposed adults bleed out when a butterfly landed on their arm and lacerated their paper thin skins.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
There was no law in Montgomery, AL that stated black people had to sit in the back of the bus.


There was however a local ordinance that required segregated bus seating based on ethnicity.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Can you go one by one and explain how exactly each of those bills violates the 1st Amendment? I'm not saying I disagree with you here, I'm just curious about your opinion on the matter.

(Though I don't think the Patriot Act is a violation of the 1st Amendment, right to privacy maybe, but I don't see how it infringes on free speech).



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
What did the children ever do with themselves when they saw the confederate flag before this year?


Obviously, they were stricken with "fear and angst," leading them to cower in the corner, piddling on themselves, weeping, and sucking their little baby thumbs.

*sigh*

God, I miss the days when Americans had some measure of thickness to their skin. Life was better back then, not watching supposed adults bleed out when a butterfly landed on their arm and lacerated their paper thin skins.


Says the people who are visibly upset that other people are upset about something they don't think is upsetting.
edit on 30-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Says the people who are visibly upset that other people are upset about something.


Do not confuse my mockery and ridicule for being upset.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: DBCowboy

HE GAVE UP his free speech! No one denied him that. Good Lord!

Yeah, he should have held his ground and refused to take down the flag. Stood up for his principles and all that.

Maybe that's what he wanted to do, but thought twice after he realized it would mean becoming the media's next 'racist' villain and a target for BLM, Sharpton, and others. Threaten a person's livelihood and they are a little more inclined to give up their rights.

But no one forced him to take it down...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join